![]()
Case Summary: Kishore Projects Private Limited Vs. State
of Gujarat
Case No: R/Special
Civil Application No. 25604 of 2022
Order Date: 22/12/2022
Court Name: High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Summary of the Case: The
case revolves around the mismatch of Input Tax Credit (ITC) between GSTR-2A and
GSTR-3B forms for the financial year 2019-2020. The petitioner, Kishore
Projects Private Limited, was demanded a payment of ₹31,95,464/- under Section
73 of the GST Act. The petitioner sought to quash this demand, arguing that the
mismatch was due to non-filing of returns by suppliers.
Brief Facts of the Case:
·
Kishore Projects Private Limited is in the
construction business and regularly files GST returns.
·
For the year 2019-2020, there was a
mismatch between the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and that reflected in GSTR-2A.
·
The mismatch occurred because some
suppliers did not file their returns.
·
The petitioner received a notice for
excess ITC claim and was demanded to pay ₹31,95,464/- (tax, interest, and
penalty).
·
The petitioner argued the demand was
excessive and not due to their fault, and they missed the appeal period due to
personal reasons.
Submission by Petitioner:
·
The petitioner claimed the mismatch was
due to suppliers not filing their returns, not due to any wrongdoing by them.
·
They argued the demand was excessive and
unjust.
·
They cited personal hardships, such as the
death of the petitioner's mother and the illness of his sister, which prevented
timely filing of an appeal.
·
They referred to the Supreme Court
decision in Union of India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., asserting GSTR-2A is a
facilitator and should not determine ITC claims rigidly.
Submission by
Respondent:
·
The respondent contended that the
petitioner claimed excess ITC due to the mismatch.
·
They highlighted the limitation period for
filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which the petitioner
exceeded.
Findings and
Decision:
·
The court noted the Supreme Court ruling
that GSTR-2A is a facilitator for self-assessment.
·
Considering the petitioner's personal
circumstances, the court allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner to
appeal to the appellate authority without objection regarding the limitation
period.
·
The court ordered the petitioner to
deposit ₹2,02,245/- as a pre-condition for the appeal.
Conclusion: The
court provided relief to the petitioner by allowing them to appeal the demand
without the limitation period being a barrier, emphasizing fair consideration
and personal hardships faced by the petitioner.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
